Sunday, January 22, 2012

It's one thing for a person to search out, understand the facts and arguments for various positions, and then to adopt them. That's respectable, and if someone disagrees with me after doing that, I respect them for it.

It's an entirely different thing when a person just goes along with popular sentiment (what their friends think, what the media portray, etc.) and then ignorantly pass on what they've been spoon fed--all the while being arrogant and dismissive, even hateful, about those who disagree with them.

I suspect this has always been the case--that people largely form their opinions based on these things without doing any due diligence or even having anything resembling an open mind about issues. But I can't help but be irritated by it, and that's why I'm calling it out here. To all those folks:

Just because a position is currently popular in our culture does not make it right. This sounds patently obvious, but people seem to forget it a lot. And I think it's worth belaboring the point because of that.

a) Just because Jon Stewart or Bill Maher can manage to maliciously mock others does not make them right. Just because thoughtful people who disagree with them choose to not engage in their disreputable and dishonest behavior doesn't mean that they couldn't or that there is no response to the mockery.
b) Just because your friends share your opinions doesn't make any of you right. Just because people around you don't contradict your snide, arrogant comments, doesn't mean they don't have a reply; it just means they're being polite, unlike you.
c) Just because polls show that a majority of Americans share your opinion doesn't make you right, and vice versa. Polls are a scientific way to measure popular opinions, not what's right.
d) Just because Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Brad Pitt, Rush Limbaugh, or [insert name of famous person/celebrity/newscaster/talking head here] says something doesn't make them right. There are famous, popular people who espouse all kinds of different and contradictory opinions, and most of them spend no more time than the average person understanding an issue before spouting their opinion on it.
e) Just because there's a law on the books doesn't make it right. Some laws do reflect what is right; others do not. Laws are not always made based on the right things or for right reasons.
f) Just because someone you respect thinks something doesn't make it right. If they are an expert in a subject, then it's acceptable to give weight to what they say on that subject, but that doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of looking into the subject for yourself, especially when there are other experts on the subject who disagree (and there usually are). "Most experts agree" is almost always a rhetorical bludgeon--don't get hit with it.
g) Just because someone is an academic doesn't make them right. They can be as subject to prejudice as anyone, and often their position, their livelihood, depends on fitting into current popular schools of thought, not to mention that academics tend to be trained into current schools of thought and have to be admitted to academia by current academics. Add to that their education makes them more inclined to presume they are right, and it is a sad irony that the people who should know better just don't.
h) Just because a position isn't popular doesn't make it right. There are plenty of people who prefer to be contrary and countercultural just for the sake of it/out of habit. Assuming you're right just because your position is unpopular is just as wrong as doing so because it is popular.

What's my point? Well, I hope it's obvious. If you think so, then good! But to be clear: be more reticent about expressing your opinion, especially if you haven't really explored it with an open mind. If nothing else, just bite your tongue when you feel that snide remark coming on--be polite. Don't parrot people like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck. These guys and others like them are ideologues that make their money precisely by playing to the prejudices of their audiences. Take everything famous people say with a grain of salt. If you don't have the time or expertise to understand a subject, just keep your opinion to yourself. No, all opinions are not created equal.

Avoid popular arrogance. Instead of ignorantly dismissing people who disagree with you, first try to see things from their perspective. Then if you still disagree, you can at least be informed about it. Even after you have thoroughly explored an issue, it's still safer to not be dismissive. There's always a good chance there's something you don't know.

As the popular ad said, "we all do stupid things sometimes." Ignorantly spouting off doesn't have to be one of them. It does take practice, effort, and vigilance, but it's the right thing to do. And if nothing else, you can avoid being an arrogant fool.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

UPDATE (22 Jan at 8:02p): This is a scathing article by liberal Catholic (i.e., he doesn't agree with the Catholic position here), Michael Sean Winters. He sees the problem with the HHS mandate, too, and it's not because he's defending the Catholic position on contraception (neither am I here), but because he sees it for what it is--an attack on religious liberty.

I have had a few friends first question how this impinges on religious freedom and second why it matters (or rather, they feel it's not important).

1) First, whether or not you agree with us on the morality of contraception (we can set that discussion aside for now), let's at least acknowledge that the settled--by Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, confirmed in the Church's universal catechism (2366-72), by Pope John Paul II in his great encyclical Evangelium Vitae, and reiterated innumerable times by our own bishops--Catholic position on the matter is that the use of artificial contraception is immoral. In other words, our religion clearly and unequivocally teaches that artificial contraception is immoral. (And add to this that some of the regulated contraception is known to be abortifacient, so this is also about abortion, another thing clearly immoral in Catholic doctrine.)

2) Now let us also agree that the new regulation says that Catholic organizations must provide artificial contraception in their health plans.

3) Given 1 and 2, what this boils down to is the government forcing a religious organization to fund something that is directly opposed to its own belief system. This is patently unconstitutional, a clear violation of the free exercise of religion. Free exercise includes not being forced to do things that your religion says are immoral. This article also deals with some of the finer points involved.

The violation of free exercise is pretty clear to me. The only thing I can figure is that those who don't see the mandate as a problem can't believe that we really think artificial contraception is a moral evil. I understand why this is hard to believe in our culture, but hopefully if you glance at some of the links above, you'll see that, yes, we really do think contraception is immoral, notwithstanding the fact that many Catholics choose to ignore this clear doctrine.

For my wife and I, as converts, this was a difficult one to come around to, and it was in part a reason we shied away initially from becoming Catholic, even though we were pretty convinced we should. You see, we think that if we profess to believe something, we should act accordingly, even when it is difficult, and so we knew that if we were going to become Catholic that not using artificial birth control is part of it. (Of course, that puts it negatively--the reasons artificial contraception is not to be used are derived from a much more positive, holistic, and healthy view of sexuality than what our contemporary culture offers.) It was in fact Evangelium Vitae that helped me to come around--because it situates this question in the broader Catholic understanding of the dignity of life.

But I digress, the point is that whether or not you agree with the Catholic religion's position on artificial contraception, it is a real moral, religious doctrine, just as much as that which says "thou shalt not kill." And forcing Catholics--including Catholic organizations who help non-Catholics--to participate in something we believe to be immoral precludes our free exercise of our religion. It's as simple as that.

A while back, I was pointing out other infringements on religious liberty, ones that are forcing overwhelmingly good social services out of business (e.g., here and here--same has been happening in the UK). The defense of this kind of stuff says, basically, it's not a violation of free exercise--we can always just, essentially, not help people. What kind of a choice is that? Not to mention, our religion also explicitly teaches us to care for the poor, the orphan, and others--so we are in effect being prevented from doing that in these cases. How many unfortunates are we putting at risk due to these ideologically motivated attacks on religious freedom? A lot--Catholic charitable organizations serve more people than any other in the world.

This is also important because it goes to the core of who we are as a country. You may not see this particular issue as important to yourself, but it is one among other increasing impingements on this first American liberty. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. All Americans should be concerned about this. Today it's artificial contraception. What will it be tomorrow? How many times must our freedoms be denied before you take action? Will it be too late then?